Effects of forgetting on performance on various intensity scaling protocols: Magnitude estimation and labeled magnitude scale (green scale)

Judges rated the intensity of NaCl solutions using magnitude estimation and the labeled magnitude scale. They performed under four response conditions that varied in reliance on memory: (1) verbal response, (2) written response with no retasting and the response sheet removed, (3) written response with a single response sheet which allowed past scores to be reviewed and amended but with no retasting, (4) the same as 3' but with retasting. Discrimination errors tended to decrease from conditions 1' through 4', yet the major and significant effect was allowing judges to retaste stimuli. The effects of how forgetting lowered discrimination were discussed in the context of experimental design and the absolute versus relative cognitive models of scaling. Un jury note les intensites des solutions de NaCl en utilisant l'echelle de Green. 4 conditions de reponses en relation avec la memoire sont proposees:1) reponse verbale, 2) reponse ecrite sans deuxieme essai et sans correction possible sur le papier, 3) reponse ecrite avec correction a posteriori possible mais sans deuxieme essai, 4) meme que 3 mais deuxieme essai possible. Les erreurs de discriminations diminuent quand on passe de 1 a 4. Les effets de l'oubli sont discutes dans le contexte de l'experience, et des modeles d'estimation existants.

[1]  S. S. Stevens.  On the psychophysical law. , 1957, Psychological review.

[2]  J. Zwislocki,et al.  Absolute scaling of sensory magnitudes: A validation , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  B. Mellers.  Reply to Zwislocki’s views on “absolute” scaling , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  EFFECTS OF FORGETTING ON VARIOUS PROTOCOLS FOR CATEGORY AND LINE SCALES OF INTENSITY , 2001 .

[5]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  Who told you the triangle test was simple , 1995 .

[6]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  Effectiveness of Sensory Difference Tests: Sequential Sensitivity Analysis for Liquid Food Stimuli , 1986 .

[7]  C. A. Weaver,et al.  Rapid, permanent, loss of memory for absolute intensity of taste and smell , 1983 .

[8]  M. McTigue,et al.  Comparison of Four Sensory Evaluation Methods for Assessing Cooked Dry Bean Flavor , 1989 .

[9]  Allen Parducci,et al.  Effects of context in judgments of sweetness and pleasantness , 1979 .

[10]  M. O'Mahony.  Salt Taste Adaptation: The Psychophysical Effects of Adapting Solutions and Residual Stimuli from Prior Tastings on the Taste of Sodium Chloride , 1979, Perception.

[11]  B. Green,et al.  Derivation and evaluation of a semantic scale of oral sensation magnitude with apparent ratio properties , 1993 .

[12]  A. Parducci.  The relativism of absolute judgements. , 1968, Scientific American.

[13]  D. Ennis,et al.  Triadic discrimination testing: refinement of Thurstonian and sequential sensitivity analysis approaches. , 1994, Chemical senses.

[14]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  Mustard discrimination by same–different and triangle tests: aspects of irritation, memory and τ criteria , 1999 .

[15]  John M. Ennis,et al.  Thurstonian models for variants of the method of tetrads , 1998 .

[16]  B. Mellers.  Evidence against “absolute” scaling , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[17]  J. Frijters,et al.  Tables of d′ for the triangular method and the 3-AFC signal detection procedure , 1980 .

[18]  Z. Vickers,et al.  LIKING OF POPCORN CONTAINING DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SALT , 1993 .

[19]  J. Frijters,et al.  The paradox of discriminatory nondiscriminators resolved , 1979 .

[20]  J. Stillman.  Response selection, sensitivity, and taste-test performance , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[21]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  A THEORETICAL NOTE ON DIFFERENCE TESTS: MODELS, PARADOXES AND COGNITIVE STRATEGIES , 1994 .

[22]  M. E. Giovanni,et al.  Measurement of Taste Intensity and Degree of Liking of Beverages by Graphic Scales and Magnitude Estimation , 1983 .

[23]  Harry T. Lawless,et al.  THE DISRIMINATIVE EFFICIENCY OF COMMON SCALING METHODS , 1986 .

[24]  J. Zwislocki.  Absolute and other scales: Question of validity , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[25]  Jian Bi,et al.  HOW TO ESTIMATE AND USE THE VARIANCE OF d’ FROM DIFFERENCE TESTS , 1997 .

[26]  J. Weiffenbach,et al.  Comparison of the Green Scale versus Magnitude Estimation for Taste Perception a , 1998, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[27]  J. Stillman.  Context effects in judging taste intensity: A comparison of variable line and category rating methods , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[28]  Donald Laming,et al.  The relativity of ‘absolute’ judgements , 1984 .

[29]  W. D. Baten.  Organoleptic tests pertaining to apples and pears. , 1946, Food research.

[30]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  The effect of interstimulus procedures on salt taste intensity functions , 1974 .

[31]  Descriptive Analysis of Whiskey Sour Formulations: Magnitude Estimation Versus a 9‐Point Category Scale , 1981 .

[32]  Harry T. Lawless,et al.  COMPARISON OF RATING SCALES: SENSITIVITY, REPLICATES AND RELATIVE MEASUREMENT , 1986 .

[33]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  Flavour discrimination: An extension of thurstonian ‘Paradoxes’ to the tetrad method , 1996 .

[34]  Daniel M. Ennis,et al.  THE POWER OF SENSORY DISCRIMINATION METHODS , 1993 .

[35]  Wolfgang Ellermeier,et al.  On the “absoluteness” of category and magnitude scales of pain , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[36]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  BEER BITTERNESS DETECTION: TESTING THURSTONIAN AND SEQUENTIAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS MODELS FOR TRIAD AND TETRAD METHODS , 1995 .

[37]  Dwight R. Riskey,et al.  USE AND ABUSES OF CATEGORY SCALES IN SENSORY MEASUREMENT , 1986 .

[38]  Kwang-Ok Kim,et al.  A new approach to category scales of intensity. I: Traditional versus rank-rating , 1998 .

[39]  L. Marks,et al.  Differential context effects in taste perception , 1991 .

[40]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  A Comparison of Sensory Difference Testing Procedures: Sequential Sensitivity Analysis and Aspects of Taste Adaptation , 1985 .

[41]  O. Kempthorne,et al.  SOME ASPECTS OF NUMERICAL SCORING IN SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF FOODS , 1956 .

[42]  T. White,et al.  Metrics of Odorant Dissimilarity: Labeled Magnitude Scale vs Magnitude Estimation a , 1998, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[43]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  SAME‐DIFFERENT DISCRIMINATION TESTS WITH INTERSTIMULUS DELAYS UP TO ONE DAY , 1999 .

[44]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  Comparison of d′ values for the 2-AFC (paired comparison) and 3-AFC discrimination methods: Thurstonian models, sequential sensitivity analysis and power , 1998 .

[45]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  TRIANGULAR DIFFERENCE TESTING: REFINEMENTS TO SEQUENTIAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR PREDICTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL TRIADS , 1989 .

[46]  H. Lawless,et al.  Contextual Effects in Category Ratings , 1983 .

[47]  S. S. Stevens.  The Psychophysics of Sensory Function. , 1960 .

[48]  A. Parducci.  Category judgment: a range-frequency model. , 1965, Psychological review.

[49]  Jean-Marc Sieffermann,et al.  TASTE DISCRIMINATION BY THE 3‐AFC METHOD: TESTING SENSITIVITY PREDICTIONS REGARDING PARTICULAR TASTING SEQUENCES BASED ON THE SEQUENTIAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS MODEL , 1999 .

[50]  HOW DO THE SIGNAL DETECTION INDICES REACT TO FREQUENCY CONTEXT BIAS FOR INTENSITY SCALING , 2001 .

[51]  H. Schifferstein.  Cognitive factors affecting taste intensity judgments , 1996 .

[52]  H. Schifferstein,et al.  Contextual and sequential effects on judgments of sweetness intensity , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[53]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  POWER AND SENSITIVITY OF THE SAME‐DIFFERENT TEST: COMPARISON WITH TRIANGLE AND DUO‐TRIO METHODS , 1998 .

[54]  B Cowart,et al.  Evaluating the 'Labeled Magnitude Scale' for measuring sensations of taste and smell. , 1996, Chemical senses.

[55]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  Cognitive aspects of difference testing : memory and interstimulus delay , 1995 .

[56]  Category ratio scale as an alternative to magnitude matching for age-related taste and odour perception , 1998 .

[57]  H. Tuorila,et al.  Recalling sweet taste intensities in the presence and absence of other tastes. , 1998, Chemical senses.

[58]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  SENSORY DIFFERENCE TESTS: THURSTONIAN AND SSA PREDICTIONS FOR VANILLA FLAVORED YOGURTS , 1997 .

[59]  Allen Parducci,et al.  Range-frequency compromise in judgment. , 1963 .

[60]  H. Schifferstein.  Sweetness suppression in fructose/citric acid mixtures: A study of contextual effects , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[61]  H. Lawless,et al.  COMPARISON OF SINGLE PRODUCT SCALING AND RELATIVE‐TO‐REFERENCE SCALING IN SENSORY EVALUATION OF DAIRY PRODUCTS , 1993 .

[62]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  Tasting successive salt and water stimuli: the roles of adaptation, variability in physical signal strength, learning, supra- and subadapting signal detectability , 1987 .

[63]  H. Schifferstein,et al.  Contextual effects in difference judgments , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.